Jefferson could only do so much, and considering your point he must have been a great source of conflict. He probably walked around in a pool of discontented people leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.

While true, the words themselves, as applicable today, do not necessarily have to be taken to mean christian or non-christian. Them dirty heathens own all the casinos now, and they vote. Whether the politicians like 'em or not, they like the votes that keep them in office.

If a politician were going to use Jefferson as a reference, then to say he meant "Christian" would show a religious bias, which I don't think any politicain is on good enough footing to do. It's one thing for them to say, "I am a Christian, and proud of it." It's quite another for them to say, "I'm a Christian, and whether you are or not, we're going to make sure you have to be exposed to our religion in school, public places, and ball games (incidentally, I don't think God really cares who wins. It's my personal opinion--and I could be wrong--that ability might very well be a factor).

Church is for religion. School, work, and public places aren't. I'm not anti-religion. I just think it has it's place. If people want religion, they'll go TO it. It doesn't have to go to them. It's no big deal if you stand on the street corner and say, "I'm a christian," hand out tracts, and invite people to church. People can decline or walk away if they don't agree. They don't have that freedom at school or work.

I don't feel that my children should be taught, in school, a belief that I may not necessarily ascribe to. It is a parent's place to teach religious views, not the school (unless you send your children to a religious school, and then it's a moot point). I don't mind my child learning about a different religion, but I'd like them to have a grounding in our family's beliefs first. If they choose to change, or try something else once they're old enough to make an informed decision, more power to them.

But I digress...

The point is, government should not endorse any particular religion over another, and placing the ten commandments in public places, having children pray in school, and things of that sort, endorse a religion. The ten commandments belong in church; laws take care of that kind of thing in the governmental sector. And hell, kids already pray in school--right before tests. It doesn't have to be governmentally endorsed. Having the ten commandments in public view won't make people behave any better.

I think that's the main issue I have with this: that the government and religion are getting in bed together. They shouldn't. We all know politics and religion don't mix. Neither should endorse the other, and that's what's happening here. The government is not endorsing spirituality--all religions--it is endorsing a single religion over all others, and it's going to blow up in SOMEONE'S face.

Soul, do you feel "In God We Trust" is endorsing a particular religion or just the ten commandments?

I don't think it's going anywhere. The Supreme Court would never allow it to be ratified - that is, if they're still dedicated to preserving the Constitution. Personal opinions of God aside, it just doesn't wash.

I always thought it was a desperate plea, added when money went fiat. ;)

Actually, based on when and why is was added, I think there is an additional line, printed under "IN GOD WE TRUST" in invisible ink: "SO TAKE THAT, YOU COMMIES"

It obviously refers to christianity. However, I don't have a problem with that. People get all freaked out over what we have on our money, and it really makes no difference to me, as long as I have money in my pocket. They could put "wooga woooga wooga, boo boo be doo" on the money, and as long as it was spendable, I wouldn't care ;)

What we have on our money isn't forcing religion on people. Nobody really even looks at money that closely, and the only time they get up in arms about it is when someone mentions taking those words OFF the money. THEN all of the sudden, they notice.

Yeah. Tell me about it. This is where forced religion, or governmental endorsement of religion, leads. If the endorsed religion thinks that something is a "sin," soon enough, we find that the religious supporters in government start trying to sneak in a law against it.

*rocks back and forth, hugging myself, and repeats after Elspode, "Theocracy is bad...theocracy is bad...theocracy is baaaaaad..."*

Obviously? Christianity is the only religion that has a God?

Marriage isn't a right, it's a rite. ;) (and a privilege)

And that religious privelege should in no way impact how other people choose to observe their commitment to each other.

Especially if it's to an anime character

If you don't like popups, don't click on that, btw.

Dammit TS, I hate it when I have to agree with you.

Soul, do you feel "In God We Trust" is endorsing a particular religion or just the ten commandments?

I always thought the money should say something in the general idea of "In The People We Trust". I have no idea what God has to do with the cash we spend.

In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash